Mark wrote:
"Frank X" wrote in message ...

Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?


Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed traffic
lights, etc?


Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.


Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve roads,
but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased little...
it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another excuse
to levy another tax on us.

Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 -
473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT).
Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find.

On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased
particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a number
of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been transferred
to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km.

I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and contributing
to the economy


No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to get
to work to pay our huge tax bills?


It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes like income
tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay like Poll
Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.


We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a big
difference between them stealing money from you through your employer,
and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly annoying
than having to physically pay them money... and money that's already
been taxed at 40%, at that.

Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what resources
need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing more
to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying.

'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use any
excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists will
actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer. Usage-based
taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform
would probably be the right direction. (See
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could
naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in the
transport system.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:
"Frank X" wrote in message
...

Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?


Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed
traffic
lights, etc?


Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.


Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve
roads,
but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased
little...
it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another
excuse
to levy another tax on us.

Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 -
473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT).
Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find.

On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased
particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a
number
of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been
transferred
to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km.

I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and
contributing
to the economy


No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to
get
to work to pay our huge tax bills?


It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes
like income
tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay
like Poll
Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.


We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a
big
difference between them stealing money from you through your
employer,
and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly
annoying
than having to physically pay them money... and money that's
already
been taxed at 40%, at that.

Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what
resources
need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing
more
to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying.

'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use
any
excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists
will
actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer.
Usage-based
taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform
would probably be the right direction. (See
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could
naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in
the
transport system.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

We don't need another tax to add to our vastly complicated tax
system. The only fair tax is on income (single % rate for all, varied
by annual public referendum). All other taxes should be abolished.
Only then would all of us (rich and poor) see the true cost of
government, and vote accordingly.
If congestion is a problem, let the free market influence people
to find alternative routes and modes of transport. If polluting the
environment is a problem, then legislate targets for fuel economy and
emissions at manufacture, like they do in the USA (albeit
non-aggressively).
I just don't think all problems can or should always be solved by
government intervention.

Ian Smith wrote:

"Dave Arquati" wrote in message
...

Mark wrote:

"Frank X" wrote in message

...

Surely you can see the benefit of taxing the
rush hour traffic more?


Why, when it won't do anything to reduce the congestion that the
government has deliberately created with bus lanes, retimed

traffic

lights, etc?



Particualarly if it makes the traffic move more
freely.


Why would it, when the government won't spend money to improve

roads,

but do spend money to make them worse? Congestion has increased
massively in the last ten years, while traffic has increased

little...

it's not our fault, and 'congestion charges' are just another

excuse

to levy another tax on us.

Actually traffic increased by 15.1% from 1991 to 2001, from 411.6 -
473.7 bn vehicle kilometres (figure for all vehicles, source: DfT).
Unfortunately comparative congestion figures are harder to find.

On the other hand, the number of journeys made has not increased
particularly; it's just that journeys are becoming longer and a

number

of journeys previously performed by foot or cycle have been

transferred

to the car, resulting in the increase in vehicle km.


I mean is it fairer to tax someone extra for working hard and

contributing

to the economy


No. So why do you want to tax tax-slaves who are merely trying to

get

to work to pay our huge tax bills?



It always amazes me how the public are willing to stomach taxes

like income

tax and NI, but go mental at the things they actually have to pay

like Poll

Tax, Fuel Tax and Congestion charging.


We don't stomach them: but, as the government is aware, there's a

big

difference between them stealing money from you through your

employer,

and stealing money from you directly in this way. I never see the
income tax money in my bank account, so it's less directly

annoying

than having to physically pay them money... and money that's

already

been taxed at 40%, at that.

Theoretically it would make more sense to tax based on what

resources

need to be limited, rather than you working harder and contributing

more

to the economy. I think that's what Frank was saying.


'Tax and spend' is all that Labour know how to do, and they'll use

any

excuse to do that. The people who believe that taxing motorists

will

actually reduce congestion are merely their 'useful idiots'.

Mark

Taxing motorists in the right way would make things fairer.

Usage-based

taxation is a step in the right direction; environmental tax reform
would probably be the right direction. (See
http://www.green-innovations.asn.au/ecotax.htm) Such a system could
naturally resolve congestion and restore some sense of balance in

the

transport system.

--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7


We don't need another tax to add to our vastly complicated tax
system. The only fair tax is on income (single % rate for all, varied
by annual public referendum). All other taxes should be abolished.
Only then would all of us (rich and poor) see the true cost of
government, and vote accordingly.

The idea of ETR isn't to add a tax, it's to replace all of the existing
ones with ones based around what causes unsustainable damage to the
environment.

If congestion is a problem, let the free market influence people
to find alternative routes and modes of transport. If polluting the
environment is a problem, then legislate targets for fuel economy and
emissions at manufacture, like they do in the USA (albeit
non-aggressively).

A free market for transport is impossible under the current system where
modes are treated separately by the government when proposing new
schemes, and where the current cost-benefit analysis model is extremely
flawed, since many of the values used in them are applied to things
which are essentially "not for sale". The current market is biased in
favour of car travel so naturally a modal shift is occurring in that
direction.

Targets are a rather blunt instrument to apply directly to the industry;
rather by using taxation to achieve targets, the true cost of
environmental damage can be compensated for.

I would also venture that the USA is hardly the best model for an
environmentally sound system.

I just don't think all problems can or should always be solved by
government intervention.

Reforming the tax system to be fully environmentally-based would
(theoretically of course) shift sustainability in the right direction by
market forces alone, without any further government intervention. It's
only sensible to tax the use of resources which affect everyone.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7

"Nick H (UK)" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

"Ian Smith" wrote in message
...

"Tom Sacold" wrote in message
...
See:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...086280,00.html

Perhaps as more traffic jams occur, more people will be encouraged
to find other means of getting there. Perhaps we don't need even more
taxation, which is really just money pulled from somewhere else, and
which we would throw back into the economy anyway, of our own accord.
Funny thing, free market forces.


But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably
crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.


--
"Transport is the life blood of the economy."





Indeed one may so argue!. Road tax: £10 a month before I even go
anywhere. Fuel tax a lot more. And then there is however much of my
Council Tax my local authority spends on making the roads less
car-friendly. Crude it may be, but a hefty charge on road usage it is.
Free? Absolutely no way.

Fiar enough, but isn't that why such a congestion tax would be "revenue
neutral"?

Of course, if these existing taxes taxes were scrapped, and road usage
was then charged by usage... But then fuel tax does that anyway.

Fuel tax though depends on the efficiency of cars - diesel cars pay less but
cause just as much congestion, and arguably more pollution (but that is
another debate).

Also, people who commute 3 miles in highly congested traffic will pay far,
far less than people who commute 30 miles on the motorway, and that isn't
necessirly good.

Also, fuel duty is not time-discriminative.



--
Nick H (UK)

"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use.

But, of course, free market forces only work if there's competition,
not a gang of armed thugs charging motorists an arm and a leg to drive
while stealing large chunks of the roads for their cronies in the bus
industry.

Hmm, I've been driving for 20 years and in all that time I've never
been accosted by a gang of armed thugs trying to charge me money.
Maybe you just live in a rough area, especially if they are trying to
steal the roads as well. Still, people will nick anything nowadays.

I agree with you, though: all roads should be privatised and all
motoring taxes should be abolished. Let private companies run the
roads instead.

And they will of course let you drive on their roads for nothing.

--
AndyA



Mark

"Matt Bourke" wrote in message
om...
"Oliver Keating" wrote in message
...
...
But of course free market forces only work if people are charged for the
services (ie roads) that they use. Currently roads are free(1)

(1) So you may argue about fuel duty etc.etc. but this is unbelievably
crude
in terms of road pricing as to be ignored.
...

Here here! Let's price the riff-raff in their mass-market hatchbacks
and super-minis off the roads. Let them use buses. Give the roads
back to the wealthy!

Yes that is a problem. Perhaps the tax you pay could be based on as a
percentage determined by your car's value and CO2 output, rather like with
company car tax. That would eliminate the regressive nature of the tax.

Matt B.
--

"Dan Holdsworth" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 17:28:28 -0000, Oliver Keating

was popularly supposed to have said:

LOL

Rural bus services are under threat because no one uses them, and those
that
do are probably recieving about £10 subsidy per journey.

A congestion charge would help more marginal public transport systems pay
for themselves, and the business about train overcrowding can be solved
by
allowing companies to charge higher fares on the basis that it must be
used
to improve the service - which has a 2 fold benefit of an immediate
reduction in demand (due to higher prices) and long term improvement in
capacity.

Another golden oldie from Captain Clueless himself!

So, you price the car drivers off the road. Then the ex-car drivers get
stung
a second time because the busses and trains can't cope, and the operators
cannot
raise the millions needed to build more tracks.

Guess who cops the blame?

You probably didn't guess correctly, but the answer is: the politicians
who
implemented the hare-brained plan in the first place.

Think before posting, please; you might shed the reputation as a bumbling
nitwit if you did.

You are an idiot and however you manged to get a PhD really makes me wonder.
Was it a PhD in playschool? Did you figure out which holes to put the
different shapes in?


--
Dan Holdsworth PhD
By caffeine alone I set my mind in motion, By the beans of Java
do thoughts acquire speed, hands acquire shaking, the shaking
becomes a warning, By caffeine alone do I set my mind in motion

"J. Chisholm" wrote in message
...
Dan Holdsworth wrote:


Another golden oldie from Captain Clueless himself!

So, you price the car drivers off the road. Then the ex-car drivers get
stung
a second time because the busses and trains can't cope, and the
operators cannot
raise the millions needed to build more tracks.

Guess who cops the blame?

You probably didn't guess correctly, but the answer is: the politicians
who
implemented the hare-brained plan in the first place.

Think before posting, please; you might shed the reputation as a
bumbling
nitwit if you did.

I think you need some lessons in GCSE Economics

I totally agree

In a true market people pay the cost of the goods they use, including
the cost of environmental damage. I'm sure no body would dispute that,
for example, open cast mining should pay the cost of restoring the
landscape and not leave the mess that some 19th century stuff did.

Yes - to those in the know, "internalising the externality"

Congestion is an environmental cost of too many cars, as is noise, and
air pollution.

Drivers should pay this cost. As an example, in Cambridge the DfT
estimate that the congestion cost of each extra 'across Cambridge' trip
in the morning peak is TEN POUNDS (so a 'Ken' charge would be cheap)

Indeed. The external cost of a car driving into central London was estimated
to be between £5-£8, so really Londoners are lucky it was set at the lower
bound.

In London the 'congestion charge' has resulted in a 16% reduction in
trips, but a 30% reduction in congestion. I'd expect most 'White Van'
men who value their time would have saved much more than the 'congestion
charge' in a single day.

Yes this is right, and highlights and important subtlety - when roads are
made stationary by heavy traffic, their efficiency in cars/minute plummets.
Also, because people spend more time on their journeys, they are
contributing to congestion longer.

Just a small reduction in traffic can greatly improve journey times as road
capacity is improved, and people spend less time on their journeys.

Buses and Taxis are also be much more efficient.

If you realy want to understand the issues 'Travel in Towns: Jam
Yesterday, Jam Today, and Jam Tomorrow', a book written in 1990 is what
you need.
see:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/...095893-7558213

Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than
'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban
Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion
more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much
reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads
from the M11 into London save?
The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public
Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting green
spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport and
many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy
Clarksons of this world

We have to be careful about investment in public transport too. It is not on
unshakable environmental grounds. Many people assume that a journey by
public transport reprents a car off the road. But this is hardly ever true,
only about 10% of people would have used their car if the public transport
service was unavailable. I suspect, in the long term, that would actually be
0%. If there were no East Coast Mainline, how many people living in
Peterborough would be driving into London for work? Because they can do it
on the train in 45 minutes, Peterborough is a commuter town, despite being
75 miles out of London. This is not environmentally beneficial.

Public transport does need investment, but it should mainly come from fares,
rather than public money.

Jim Chisholm

Oliver Keating wrote:

Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than
'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban
Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion
more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much
reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads
from the M11 into London save?
The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public
Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting green
spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport and
many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy
Clarksons of this world

We have to be careful about investment in public transport too. It is not on
unshakable environmental grounds. Many people assume that a journey by
public transport reprents a car off the road. But this is hardly ever true,
only about 10% of people would have used their car if the public transport
service was unavailable. I suspect, in the long term, that would actually be
0%. If there were no East Coast Mainline, how many people living in
Peterborough would be driving into London for work? Because they can do it
on the train in 45 minutes, Peterborough is a commuter town, despite being
75 miles out of London. This is not environmentally beneficial.

Public transport does need investment, but it should mainly come from fares,
rather than public money.

Have you been reading:

http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PD...ityforRSA.pdf?

I agree that we shouldn't do things to encourage more and longer trips,
but isn't that just what we've done for private cars? FREE roads paid
out of general taxation, and cheap petrol obtained by beating up poor
and vulnerable countries?

Since doing some stats on trips on Great Western Main line into London
from Reading in early 1970's I've felt we've made commuting fares too
cheap. Then an 'annual' season ticket gave a daily rate(assuming 220
tpa) cheaper than a cheap day return. Perhaps what we need to do is
ensure car trips pay true cost?

Jim Chisholm
(who cycles, drives and travels by train about 3k miles by each mode
each year, and hasn't polluted the sky for years.

"J. Chisholm" wrote in message
...
Oliver Keating wrote:

Those people who still think we should 'invest' in roads rather than
'subsidies' public transport should be aware that at least in Urban
Areas every pound invested in Public Transport reduces car congestion
more than the same money invested in building new roads. How much
reduction in congestion did the one Billion Pounds spent on the roads
from the M11 into London save?
The increase in ability to move people quickly and safely with Public
Transport, is huge compared with demolishing houses and concreting
green
spaces as required for roads. Create better quicker public transport
and
many will desert their cars leaving much more space for the Jeremy
Clarksons of this world

We have to be careful about investment in public transport too. It is
not on
unshakable environmental grounds. Many people assume that a journey by
public transport reprents a car off the road. But this is hardly ever
true,
only about 10% of people would have used their car if the public
transport
service was unavailable. I suspect, in the long term, that would
actually be
0%. If there were no East Coast Mainline, how many people living in
Peterborough would be driving into London for work? Because they can do
it
on the train in 45 minutes, Peterborough is a commuter town, despite
being
75 miles out of London. This is not environmentally beneficial.

Public transport does need investment, but it should mainly come from
fares,
rather than public money.

Have you been reading:

http://www.geog.ucl.ac.uk/~jadams/PD...ityforRSA.pdf?

I am not convinced by some of the doomsday vision being put foreward by some
of these people (there are many people concerned about hypermobility).

I do think that transport infrastructure should be allowed to grow, but I
think a lot of growth in transport could be done by making things a lot more
efficient eg supermarkets using *local* suppliers etc.

This sort of thing reduces transport demand without any adverse economic
effects.

I agree that we shouldn't do things to encourage more and longer trips,
but isn't that just what we've done for private cars? FREE roads paid
out of general taxation, and cheap petrol obtained by beating up poor
and vulnerable countries?

But road travel geniunely isn't free. Fuel duty and VAT form 85% of the cost
of petrol and diesel, and there is also VED.

Now in terms of money spend on roads v money recieved in taxes from the
motorist, the motorist is definately *net* taxed, not subsidised.

Whether this is still true if you include the external costs of motoring
(accidents, noise, congestion, pollution) is a subject of hot debate - as
you can see motorists could argue for exmaple, that they already "pay" for
congestion as they are the ones who have to sit in it!

Since doing some stats on trips on Great Western Main line into London
from Reading in early 1970's I've felt we've made commuting fares too
cheap. Then an 'annual' season ticket gave a daily rate(assuming 220
tpa) cheaper than a cheap day return. Perhaps what we need to do is
ensure car trips pay true cost?

The problem is that fuel duty is an incredibly crude lever, because the
"true cost" of your journey depends strongly on time of day and location,
only a satellite based congestion charging system could account for this.

Jim Chisholm
(who cycles, drives and travels by train about 3k miles by each mode
each year, and hasn't polluted the sky for years.